--

Did the boss catch you?  Don't blame him. If the issue might turn bad, official statements of agents might be scrutinized.

Quote from: cardmaverick on August 09, 2010, 01:49

Stuff like this only illustrates why IP laws are complete crap. This business does not sell IP, it sells a service, because quite frankly thats all it really can sell. I've personally talked with people who have worked at several "trad" agencies for the last 20 years, and they actually agree and understand what I'm talking about. As the world becomes more digitized, IP laws become exposed more and more for the complete ridiculousness that they are.

Now this is sort of an odd statement.  Perhaps you can elaborate a bit more.

Sure thing. This business is isn't about rights, its about convenience. The original concept behind stock photography wasn't really about trying to save money on assignment shoot costs, it was more about finding images that were already made. In other words, customers were attracted to the model because they didn't have to wait weeks for a shoot to turn around, they didn't have to worry about how the images would turn out or if the photographer was a total PITA to work with, etc... They could find exactly what they wanted, and obtain it overnight if needed, and they could even talk to real humans at the agency who knew the collection well enough to help locate the desired types of shots.

Those are all services, they have absolutely nothing to do with IP laws, and this is where 99% of all micro agencies have screwed up.

I know how much istock contributers love to hate the istock back end for submissions, but if you seriously look at the powerful search options of the istock search engine, its no wonder why they are the leader in the business. That search engine is a service, thats what you're really paying for, even though it isn't presented that way when you check out.

Now digital technology has really changed things up, because its akin to a physical store keeping all its merchandise outside in the parking lot with little stickers on everything that says: please don't take me. People here seem to think that because we have IP laws, its a solid enough foundation to build a business model on top of. Right? I mean you can always just "sue your way to profit, right?" HELL NO. For one, its rarely, if ever, profitable to sue for damages over a micro stock image. The amount you'd win probably won't be greater than your legal bills. The best you can do is scare tactics like cease and desist letters, but those are a more formal way of saying, "please stop, I'll loose money taking you to court, which makes it pointless, so hopefully this letter will scare you enough to pay up." If this business wants to survive online, it had better find a more secure way to present the photos being purchased, it also needs to "get with it" on the customer service end of things as well. I've been lampooned a few times over suggestions that agencies be more restrictive on access to their collections. It's fine to disagree, but don't moan and groan with threads like this when all you're stuff is being taken and used and you find yourself with no compensation or profitable legal options.

If you really want to understand the anti IP position in more detail, I really encourage reading or listening to "Against Intellectual Property", its available for free online at the Ludwig von Mises Institute website. It's helped me see this business with a much clearer perspective.

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=226

If you have any other questions, please ask, I'll try my best to answer them.

I dunno.  Sounds like kind of a defeatest attitude.  I don't think you're saying that we shouldn't own and control the rights to our creations, just that the method for doing the controlling is imperfect.

I dunno.  Sounds like kind of a defeatest attitude.  I don't think you're saying that we shouldn't own and control the rights to our creations, just that the method for doing the controlling is imperfect.

I would argue its more of a "realist" attitude. You do own your stuff... that is until you give them away to the world, effectively loosing all control, and thats the big point. When you sell something, you have, at least in the real world, given up your right over whatever it is you sold, especially with intangible products. If this is how the real world operates, why on earth would anyone base a business model on some law that ignores reality? It's like creating a business that sells oxygen because some law was passed saying you have to pay a fee to breath. Do you really think thats a wise investment or smart way to create a business model? I don't, and IP law centric business's suffer from the same situation: they are not based on reality, they are based on unrealistic laws and ideas. This is why I encourage others to check out the more in depth arguments against IP, and then seriously think about the current business models based on IP laws. You really begin to see the leaky holes.

I actually think stock photography has a very bright future, I just see that future differently from others.

Ok, realist then.  But the value of the image is not in the physical 0s and 1s you transfer to someone, but permission to use the image those bits represent.  Just because it can freely be duplicated does not mean it is without value.

There is no real control over most things that can be easily duplicated, especially if the duplicate is lossless.

To revert to the topic (sorry), I just had 2 shots on Awkward. Pretty awkward if I may say so. One of those almost never sold (well maybe 5 times over all).
I'll report later if they got any extra sales at ShutterStock. It's just an experiment.